R v Mangov

Toronto (City) v. Mangov

2014 ONCJ 351
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice S. Nakatsuru | July 23, 2014

Background

On February 26, 2013, P.C. Hayward was running a speed trap on Kingston Road in Toronto, enforcing the 60 km/h limit with a Lidar Atlanta laser device. At 7:31 AM, he clocked Louis Mangov's black GMC SUV doing 80 km/h and pulled him over. Mangov went to trial represented by paralegal Tatangelo, maintaining his innocence and testifying that he was doing the speed limit and aware of frequent speed traps on his route to work.

What should have been a routine speeding trial turned into a judicial nightmare. Before any evidence was heard, the Justice of the Peace made comments suggesting defendants should just plead guilty rather than waste the court's time with trials. The situation deteriorated during cross-examination when she repeatedly cut off the defence and accused them of deliberately prolonging the trial.

Issues

1. Did the Justice of the Peace's conduct create a reasonable apprehension of bias?
2. Did the Justice of the Peace err in refusing to admit the laser device manual as evidence?

The Bias Finding

Justice Nakatsuru found the Justice of the Peace's conduct created a clear reasonable apprehension of bias. The problems started immediately when she asked why the defendant didn't want to "resolve" (plead guilty) and stated "it's in best interest to resolve. How many trials do I have to do for speeding before people understand?" This comment came before any evidence was heard and while the defendant was entitled to be presumed innocent.

The situation worsened during cross-examination. When the paralegal said he had 20-25 questions about the laser testing, the Justice of the Peace interrupted: "Well I think this is too much, Mr. Tatangelo." She repeatedly told him to "focus" and be "precise and concise" even though his cross-examination was proper and relevant to challenging the reliability of the speed measurement. The paralegal eventually asked on the record: "It seems as if you've already made a decision, Your Worship, in your mind."

The court applied the test from Committee for Liberty and Justice v. National Energy Board: would a reasonable person with knowledge of the circumstances have a reasonable apprehension that the judge was biased? Justice Nakatsuru found that a reasonable observer would conclude the Justice of the Peace was "predisposed to conviction on speeding trials" and that "a conviction was inescapable."

The Manual Evidence

The defence wanted to cross-examine the officer using the manufacturer's manual for the Lidar Atlanta device to show proper procedures weren't followed. The Justice of the Peace refused to admit it as an exhibit, saying it wasn't "certified" and they didn't have the "original." Justice Nakatsuru found this reasoning was wrong — there's no rule requiring certification of such documents. However, he upheld the ruling because the defence hadn't laid proper foundation for the manual's admission as independent evidence (it would be hearsay without proper foundation).

Importantly, the court noted the defence could have continued cross-examining the officer about the manual without making it a formal exhibit, but chose to end questioning after the ruling.

Key Takeaway

A judge cannot suggest defendants should plead guilty before hearing any evidence, and must allow proper cross-examination without showing impatience or predisposition to convict.

The court ordered an acquittal rather than a new trial, recognizing this would be Mangov's third court date for a minor speeding ticket. Justice Nakatsuru noted the irony that time pressures and heavy dockets — the very problems that led to the biased conduct — would only be made worse by ordering a retrial.